Different Perspectives of the Therapeutic Alliance and Therapist Technique in 2 Forms of Dynamically Oriented Psychotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study addresses several issues concerning patients' and therapists' perceptions of key therapy process variables. This includes examining whether patients and therapists differ in their perceptions of the therapeutic alliance and therapist technique, what the relation is between perceptions of the alliance and technique, and whether these perceptions are predictive of treatment outcome. METHOD: Patient and therapist perceptions of the therapy process were provided in a comparative trial of 2 forms of short-term individual dynamic psychotherapy. Patients (n = 144) were randomly assigned to each condition. Treatment outcome was assessed using a large, comprehensive battery of reliable measures. RESULTS: The findings revealed several differences in the patients' and therapists' ratings of the alliance and technique in the 2 forms of therapy. Patient ratings of the alliance and technique were predictive of treatment outcome. CONCLUSION: The findings contribute to understanding the extent to which therapy participants share views of therapy processes and highlight the importance of the therapist's attending to the patient's perception of therapy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".